Columbia River Project Water Use Plan. Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring Progress Report Year 2

Transcription

1 Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring Progress Report Year 2 Reference: CLBMON-2 Columbia River Water Use Plan Monitoring Program: Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring Study Period: 2009 Dale Sebastian Ecosystems Branch Ministry of Environment August 2010

2 This is a progress report for a long term monitoring program and, as such, contains preliminary data. Conclusions are subject to change and any use or citation of this report or the information herein should note this status. Suggested Citation: Sebastian, D Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring. Progress Report Year 2 (2009). Prepared for BC Hydro, Water Licence Requirements. Study No. CLBMON pp.

3 1 CLBMON-2 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring Progress Report Year 2 (2009) Prepared by Dale Sebastian INTRODUCTION The Ecosystems Branch of the Ministry of Environment and BC Hydro (BCH) under its Columbia River Water License Requirements (WLR) program undertook the second year of a proposed twelve year study to monitor kokanee in the limnetic habitat of two Columbia Basin reservoirs, Kinbasket and Revelstoke, during August This project is part of a long term monitoring program to determine if there is a correlation between reservoir operations and the abundance and growth of kokanee. This report documents progress to date on the study as part of the terms outlined in the July 2008 Contribution Agreement (No. Q8-8539). The agreement outlines roles and responsibilities in this mutually beneficial partnership between BC Hydro and the Province of BC. This report presents summary data and results of the 2009 field survey in relation to previous years of trend data using the same survey design, methods and equipment. METHODS AND EQUIPMENT Surveys were done at night from a closed cabin 7.3m Ministry research boat fully equipped for night work. Acoustic data were collected continuously along transects using a Simrad EK60 split beam scientific sounder operating at a frequency of 120 KHz. Digital raw data were stored on a Toshiba PC computer and backed up on compact disc. The files were compressed and analysed using SONAR-5 version software operating on a Windows XP platform. Software settings were tested and refined over the winter of in order to ensure results are comparable to the existing time series dataset which was collected over a period of 10 years with a Simrad EY200P single beam echosounder operating at 70kHz as described in Sebastian et al (1995). Transect echograms were viewed and some preliminary analyses performed on site to ensure data quality. Radar and a Global Positioning System (GPS) were used for efficiency of night-time navigation and to locate and verify sampling locations. Trawl sampling was done on both Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs using a 3 x 7m opening /closing trawl net deployed by an hydraulic dual drum winch and boom. The purpose of trawling was to verify species observed at night with the echosounder, and to collect biological samples for determining length, weight, age and growth. The net

4 2 was lowered to the top of the visible fish layer (eg. 15 meters on Revelstoke), opened and fished for minutes per layer covering from 1-3 seven meter layers at a speed of km. hr -1. Note that trawl sampling was directed at the most dense parts of the fish layer to optimize numbers of fish in hand. The net depth, water temperature and distance from the boat were measured using a Notus trawl depth sensor system. Total length of habitat trawled was determined by GPS. A Seabird cast was made in the main pool of Kinbasket Reservoir and in Sections 1 and 2 of Revelstoke Reservoir to measure temperature profiles. Results and Discussion Survey timing, general flow conditions, pool elevation and habitat Acoustic and trawl surveys (ATS) were conducted August on Revelstoke Reservoir and August on Kinbasket Reservoir The maximum monthly discharge of the largest tributary, the Columbia River near Golden BC provides an index of the magnitude of annual spring freshet. In 2009 the maximum monthly flow was 401 m 3. sec -1 or only 77% of the long-term average of 522 m 3. sec -1 based on all years of record (Fig. 2). During the previous eight consecutive years surveyed, the freshet flows were higher in seven years and lower in only one year indicating that 2009 was a relatively low flow year for the Upper Columbia River. A mean annual flow in 2009 of 136 m 3. sec -1 was ~84% of the 35 year average of 162 m 3. sec -1 since the Mica Dam was constructed (Fig. 3). Although flows in the Columbia River upstream of Kinbasket Reservoir only provide a coarse index of annual climatic conditions in the drainage, it will detect any significant changes in the natural run-off patterns that might affect kokanee distribution and abundance. Inflows to Kinbasket Reservoir were significantly lower than average in The reservoir was still filling at the time of the August 2009 survey and pool elevation continued to rise another 1.71 m to reach a peak level of m on September 25. The average pool elevation at the time of survey was m and the pelagic habitat area was estimated at 23,067 ha for the surveyed habitat (Table 1). Note that habitat sections 1 and 9 are not included in the annual surveys due to hazards for night navigation and marginal quality of pelagic habitat for kokanee with depth being the major limitation. The flatness of sections 1 and 9 make them particularly sensitive to changes in pool elevation (Table 1). Furthermore, the age 1-3+ kokanee would have to re-colonize zones 1 and 9 following each winter drawdown period. With pool elevation approximately 4m below full pool, the reduction in pelagic habitat area surveyed in 2009 was only about 3% over full pool pelagic area (Table 1). A summary of survey dates, pool elevation and pelagic habitat area for all previous summertime surveys are shown in Table 2. On Revelstoke Reservoir, the pool elevations remained fairly constant and the surface area and pelagic habitat area surveyed in sections 1 and 2 remained at approximately

5 3 9,200 and 7,250 ha, respectively. Note, Section 3 of Revelstoke is not included in annual abundance surveys since it is shallow, riverine and has very little pelagic habitat suitable for kokanee rearing (Table 1). Table 1. Summary of surface area and pelagic habitat area (>20 depth) by section based on full pool elevations for Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs. Section Location/ Description Full pool 1 Surface area (ha) Full pool 2 Pelagic Pelagic area (ha) Pelagic 4 % reduced Kinbasket Reservoir 1 Canoe Reach Valemont to 40m contour 2,400 1,305 1, Canoe Reach 40m contour to narrows 4,560 4,060 3, Canoe Reach - narrows to Mica pool 4,900 4,360 4, Mica Pool above dam 6,940 5,580 5, Wood Arm 2,020 1,560 1, Mica Pool to Old Kinbasket Lake 2,120 1,805 1, Old Kinbasket Lake 5,270 5,055 5, South Columbia Reach 1,500 1,315 1, Bush Pool to Upper Columbia River 11,350 6,980 5, Total 41,060 32,020 29, Total surveyed 27,310 23,735 23,067 3 Revelstoke Reservoir 1 Main basin - dam to Downie Cr 6,100 5,250 5, Narrows - Downie to Nicholls Cr 3,100 2,000 2, Riverine - Nicholls Cr to Mica Dam 2, Total 11,300 7,700 7, &2 Total habitat surveyed 9,200 7,250 7, Full pool elevation = 754m 2. Full pool pelagic area = area at 20m or greater depth at full pool pelagic area is area at 750m pool elevation and 20m or greater depth 4. Percent reduction of pelagic area over full pool estimates due to lower pool elevation

6 4 Table 2. Survey dates, pool elevation and pelagic habitat area at the time of survey for Kinbasket Reservoir. Year Dates Pool elevation 1 (m) Drawdown (m) Pelagic habitat Area 2 (ha) 1993 August , August , August , August , July , July , August , August , August , July 28-Aug , August , Pool elevation at time of survey rounded to nearest meter 2. refers to area surveyed in sections 2-8 only at time of survey Water temperature The water temperature profile for Kinbasket Reservoir showed a distinct warmer layer of 15-17ºC from the surface to a depth of 14.5m. Below this, temperature declined fairly steadily from 15 to 7 ºC at a depth of 42m and then gradually declined to 3.5 ºC at about 95m depth (Fig. 4). The surface temperature was warmer than the previous year and it is likely that fish found above ~15m depth in 2009 were not kokanee, since they prefer cooler temperatures at night. The temperature profile for lower and middle Revelstoke reservoir also showed a warm surface layer of ºC extending from the surface to a depth of about 12m. From m there was a fairly well defined thermocline as temperature declined to 10 ºC (Fig.4). Below 25m temperatures declined more slowly. Kokanee Distribution The vertical distribution of kokanee at night is best shown by contour plots for Kinbasket Resevoir and Revelstoke reservoirs (Fig. 5). The night-time fish layer was found at a relatively uniform depth of 15-35m throughout Kinbasket Reservoir during 2009 and suggested the fish preferred temperatures in the range of 9-15 ºC. For estimating populations the reservoir was stratified on the basis of average fish densities. Lower densities of fish/ha were found in the Canoe Reach, near the Mica Dam, Wood Arm and old Kinbasket Lake. Higher densities of fish/ha were found in the main pool and into the adjacent Canoe Reach to the north and Columbia Reach to the south, and also in the upper Columbia Reach above old Kinbasket Lake. With the exception of the Upper Columbia, the relative distribution of fish densities was very

7 5 similar to the average for the previous eight survey years (Fig. 6). An east to west gradient of decreasing fish density across the main pool to near the dam was observed again in In Revelstoke, the fish layer was shallower than in Kinbasket and was found primarily from 10-25m depth (Fig. 5b). The temperature profile suggested the majority of fish occupied areas where temperature was ºC or similar to Kinbasket Reservoir. This is consistent with the notion that the large majority of pelagic fish are kokanee in both basins and is supported by trawl catches. Toward the upper end of Reach 2 in Revelstoke Reservoir the fish layer was slightly shallower and may also have been influenced by the shallower depth and/or local water temperature conditions. There were a few small groups of fish detected near the surface (eg 3-10m) in Revelstoke which may not have been kokanee due to higher water temperatures (eg Transects 1 & 2 near the dam, Transects 14 & 17 near the junction with Downie Arm and Transect 25 at upstream end of Zone 2), however these groups were too patchy and densities too low to warrant species validation through additional trawling. Compared to the previous years average, the transect densities were patchier in both Zones 1 and 2 in Revelstoke during For example, it was unusual to detect fish densities of above 200 fish/ha in Zone 2 above Downie Creek (eg Fig. 7b; transect 18). This may have been a symptom of larger than average flow releases during summer 2009 required to enable barge access to the Lower Columbia to facilitate delivery of a new turbine for Revelstoke 5 project. In general, the individual transect densities in Zone 1 (main basin) of Revelstoke were below average while the densities in the narrow Zone 2 above Downie Creek were above average. Individual transect densities for Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs for all years are shown in Appendix 1 and 2, respectively. Kokanee Abundance Kokanee abundance (all ages) in 2009 was estimated at 8.7 million ( ) for Kinbasket Reservoir (Fig. 8). This was a significant decline over the previous two years and was slightly lower than the long-term average. Previous to 2009, the abundance estimates for Kinbasket ranged from 5-17 million and averaged 9.1 million. In Revelstoke Reservoir the kokanee abundance (all ages) for 2009 was estimated at 1.24 million ( ) and was similar to the long term average of 1.27 million based on summer surveys in and Based on the acoustic size distribution, age 0+ fish were separated from the age 1-3+ fish by size using a -44dB cut-off. The trends in age 0+ and age 1-3+ abundance for the two reservoirs are shown in Figure 9. Monitoring up to 2008 showed that the age 1-3+ population in Kinbasket was remarkably stable at ~2 million ± 0.5 million (±25%), even though fry numbers have ranged considerably from year to year. This was the case even in 1993 and 1994 when overall populations were much lower due to lower fry numbers. The limits on age 1-3+ production appeared to have been reached most if not

8 6 all years from the available fry recruitment. Spawning habitat does not appear to be limiting for this system. In 2009, the abundance of age 1-3+ kokanee was estimated at 1.98 million ( ) or about average following the second strongest fry population on record in This lends further support to the notion that age 1-3 abundance in Kinbasket was at capacity for the habitat conditions. In Revelstoke Reservoir the age 1-3+ population was estimated at 200,000 (152, ,000) and was similar to the average of 214,000 for previous surveys. In Revelstoke Reservoir, the numbers of age 1-3 kokanee can vary considerably (eg from -50% to plus 70% of the mean). Although kokanee populations in other lakes can show this level of variation, the changes are typically more gradual since the abundance of age 1-3 fish is typically moderated by contributions from three age groups. However, large fluctuations in Revelstoke populations have occurred in adjacent years. This along with the extremely low numbers of spawners leads to the tentative conclusion that population levels must be influenced by entrainment at upper and lower ends (i.e. both immigration and emigration). It is hoped that continuous time series information will assist in better understanding the role that entrainment and dam operations play in these populations. Trawl Sampling Debris was not a problem for trawl sampling on the main pool of Kinbasket Reservoir in A total of 202 fish were caught in three directed trawls in Kinbasket with the large majority (95%) being age 0+ fish (Table 3; Appendix 5a). Three age classes were represented although only one age 1+ and 8 age 2+ fish were caught. A total of 159 fish were caught in Revelstoke Reservoir in two directed trawls. Although mostly fry, two age 1+ and one age 2+ fish were also captured. To maximize catch the trawling was directed to the highest densities in the fish layer, with the disadvantage of introducing bias in age proportions for tracking age structure and specific cohorts. Therefore, the 95% fry captured in Kinbasket and 98% 0+ in Revelstoke trawling does not represent the true proportions of age 0+ and 1-3+ fish. The acoustic size distributions suggesting 23% age 1-3 kokanee in Kinbasket and 16% in Revelstoke were considered more representative of true age structure. Considerably more trawl effort would be required and at a number of locations in order to conduct standardized stepped oblique trawling to assess the age structure on this reservoir and is not practical. Alternatively, with further refinement of acoustic fish size distributions using limited size at age information from the trawl and spawner size estimates, it may be possible to develop indices of age structure from the acoustic data. Even thought acoustic data may provide the best option for estimating age structure on this system, the results may not make biological sense in terms of cohort survival and spawner numbers on Revelstoke if the population variations are largely a result of entrainment rather than survival between cohorts.

9 7 Table 3. Summary of kokanee length and weight data by age from trawl sampling in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs during August 2009 Location age FL FL range S.D. N WT (g) S.D. N (WT) (mm) (mm) (FL) (WT) Kinbasket Kinbasket Kinbasket Kinbasket Revelstoke Revelstoke Revelstoke Compared with the average length-at-age from previous surveys there is some evidence that growth has increased in 2009 and also may have been better than the long term average. This is largely based on the biomodal distribution of spawners which suggests the majority of fish in 2009 spawned at age 2+. A slightly larger average size of 2+ fish results when 2+ spawners and trawl fish are combined. The mode of 3+ fish at 270mm appears to also have shifted to the right when compared with 2008 age 3+ spawners. The only age 1+ fish caught was also larger than the average of previous years. The lower overall densities of kokanee in Kinbasket during 2009 is consistent with observations of better growth. Ironically, the average spawner size and therefore fecundity has declined, but primarily as a result of a shift to age 2+ spawners. Anecdotal information from an experienced local angler also supports the notion that a significant number of 2+ fish left the reservoir to spawn during mid-august as the fishing success and average size dropped significantly between July and August of Comparison between echosounder systems. A comparison of the standard EY200P single beam echosounder system and the new EK60/Sonar 5 system results was done by comparing average fish densities by transect for Kinbasket 2008 data. Although only short sections from the middle of each transect were collected with the new EK60 system, the average densities were fairly comparable showing a reasonably good relation over a wide range of fish densities from both Revelstoke and Kinbasket Reservoirs (Fig. 11). During processing, defining the single target echo length at and allowing a phase deviation of 0.3 produces slightly better size distributions and fairly comparable density estimates to the Single Beam time series data compared with earlier SONAR-5 analyses. Similar data has been collected using both echosounder systems on other projects in 2008 and comparisons and refinement of settings was still underway at the time of this writing.

10 8 Acknowledgements Direct funding was provided by BC Hydro and in-kind support by the Ministry of Environment for this monitoring. Field surveys and data analyses were conducted by George Scholten, David Johner and Tyler Weir of the Ministry of Environment. Scale interpretations were done by Emma-Jane Johnson at the Ministry of Environment lab in Abbotsford. Spawner data and review of this manuscript were provided by Karen Bray of BC Hydro, Revelstoke. Camp Creek spawner data were collected by Curtis Culp, Dunster. Thanks to these people! References Sebastian, Dale, George Scholten, Dean Addision, Marc Labelle and David Green Results of the hydroacoustic surveys at Mica and Revelstoke Reservoirs. Stock Management Unit Report No. 1. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, 37p.

11 9 Figure 1. Map of Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs showing location of reaches and acoustic transects.

12 Discharge (m3/s) Year Figure 2. Monthly mean flows for unregulated Columbia River inflows to Kinbasket Reservoir measured by Water Survey of Canada near Golden BC. Note that red circles indicate study years with standardized ATS survey design, blue circles indicate non-standard preliminary survey years. (the mean for all years was cms). 300 Average discharge (cms) Mean Longterm mad Year Figure 3. Mean Annual Discharge of unregulated Columbia River inflows to Kinbasket Reservoir based on Water Survey of Canada near Golden BC. The red line indicates the average annual flow of 162 cms since construction of Mica Dam in Note: 2009 flow data was considered preliminary at the time of this writing.

13 11 a) Kinbasket main pool July 30, 2008 b) Kinbasket main pool Aug 23, 2009 Temperature ( o C) Temperature ( o C) Depth (m) Depth (m) c) Revelstoke July 24, 2008 b) Revelstoke August 19, Temperature ( o C) Temperature ( o C) Depth (m) Lower Revelstoke Upper Revelstoke Depth (m) Lower Revelstoke Upper Revelstoke Figure 4. Water temperature profiles for Kinbasket main pool during a) July 2008 and b) August 2009 and for lower and middle basins of Revelstoke reservoir during c) July 2008 and d) August Note: temperatures were measured at transect 4 on Lower Revelstoke and transect 26 (Nichols Creek) on Upper Revelstoke in 2008.

14 12 a) Kinbasket Depth (m) Transect Number 50 Density (no/ha) b) Revelstoke Depth (m) Transect number 50 Density (no/ha) Figure 5. Contour plots showing kokanee distribution by depth and transect for a) Kinbasket and b) Revelstoke reservoirs based on 2009 acoustic surveys. Note that density (no/ha) scales are different between the two basins as a result of major differences in fish abundance. Note also that transects not surveyed have been omitted for purposes of graphing.

15 13 a) Kinbasket Canoe Reach Main pool Wood Columbia Reach kokanee/ha transect number b) Kinbasket Canoe Reach Main pool Wood Columbia Reach kokanee/ha transect number Figure 6. Longitudinal density distributions for kokanee in Kinbasket Reservoir based acoustic survey comparing a) average and b) Error bars on upper figure indicate 95% confidence limits on the seven year means.

16 a) Revelstoke Reach 1 - Lower Basin Reach 2 (narrow and deep) kokanee/ha Transect number b) Revelstoke 2009 Reach 1 - Lower Basin Reach 2 (narrow and deep) kokanee/ha Transect number Figure 7. Longitudinal density distributions for kokanee in Revelstoke Reservoir based acoustic survey comparing a) average and b) Note: bounds indicate 95% C.L. on 8-year means.

17 15 a) Kinbasket Reservoir 20 Abundance (in millions) Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Jul-08 Aug-09 Survey time b) Revelstoke Reservoir Abundance (in millions) Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Jul-08 Aug-09 Survey time Figure 8. Kokanee trends in total abundance (all ages) in a) Kinbasket and b) Revelstoke reservoirs based on acoustic surveys, and Note error bars denote 95% confidence limits on maximum likelihood estimates.

18 16 Number of fish (in millions) a) Kinbasket Reservoir Age 0 Age 1-3 Aug 93 Aug 94 Aug 01 Aug 02 Jul 03 Jul 04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Jul-08 Aug-09 Survey date Number of fish (in millions) b) Revelstoke Reservoir Age 0 Age Aug 93 Aug 94 Aug 01 Aug 02 Jul 03 Jul 04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Jul-08 Aug-09 Survey date Figure 9. Abundance trends for age 0+ and age 1-3+ kokanee in a) Kinbasket and b) Revelstoke reservoirs based on mid- summer acoustic surveys, and

19 17 Proportion (%) a) July August trawl and spawner Age 0 (n=785) Age 1 (n=19) Age 2 (n=26) Spawners (n=150) Fork length (cm) Proportion (%) b) August 2008 trawl and spawner Age 0 (n=366) Age 1 (n=10) Age 2 (n=10) Spawner (n=30) Fork length (cm) Proportion (%) c) August 2009 trawl and spawner Age 0 (n=192) Age 1 (n=1) Age 2 (n=8) Spawner (n=59) Fork length (cm) Figure 10. Kokanee length frequency proportion by age for a) and b) 2008 and c) 2009 based on trawl sampling in Kinbasket pool and spawner surveys at Camp Creek. Note: Karen Bray, BCH Revelstoke provided spawner data.

20 18 EK60 ( ) with MaxPhaseDev of 0.3 and EY200P density comparisons (Kin-Rev 2008 data, single fish) 1600 EK60 density (fish/ha) y = 1.154x R² = EY200P density (fish/ha) Figure 11. Comparison of EY200P (single beam echosounder) transect fish densities with EK60 SONAR 5 (Split beam echosounder) estimates for 2008 Kinbasket and Revelstoke using min and max echo lengths of 0.7 to 1.3 and phase deviation of 0.30 on the data. NOTE: further refinement of EK60 analyses settings was underway at the time of this writing so 2009 values may undergo further fine tuning.

21 19 Appendix 1. Kinbasket Reservoir fish densities by transect from hydroacoustic surveys, Note densities reported here represent all depths and are not weighted by the amount of habitat at depth. Location Zone Trans No Aug 2002 Aug 2003 July 2004 July 2005 Aug 2006 Aug 2007 Aug 2008 July 2009 Aug Ptarmigan Cr Hugh Allan Cr Howard Bay Foster Arm Dainard Cr Mica Dam Mica Arm Mica Arm Sprague By Main pool Main pool Main pool East side South side Wood Arm Lower Columbia Old Kinbasket Pool SullivnArm Kyanite Cr Garrett Cr Upper Columbia Bush Pool

22 20 APPENDIX 2. Revelstoke Reservoir fish densities by transect from hydroacoustic surveys, Note densities reported here represent all depths and are not weighted by the amount of habitat at depth. Location Zone Trans No Aug 2002 Aug 2003 July Rev. Dam Coursier Cr Martha Cr Sale Cr LaForme Cr Carnes Cr Frisby Cr Mars Cr Park Cr Bourne Cr Keystone Downie Downie Arm 16 Power line Fissure Cr Ferry Liberty Cr Old Goldstrm Goldstream Stump field Powerline Hoskins Cr Nichols Cr Blank values indicate no data July 2005 Aug 2006 Aug 2007 Aug 2008 July 2009 Aug

23 21 APPENDIX 3. Summary of regression statistics and Maximum Likelihood Estimates from Monte Carlo Simulations for Kinbasket Reservoir in August a) fish all ages Kinbasket July 2009 layered analyses statistics for fish >-61 db ; 4 zones Z1 (Transects 1-5), Z2 (Transects 6-8,13-16,20), Z3(Transects 9-12,17-19), Z4(T21-30) Zone Depth N Density Standard Area Stratum Statistic 1 Abundance Error population , , , ,660 All Fish > 61 db ,643 MLE 8,722, ,281 Lower 7,800, ,222 Upper 9,612, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000, , , , ,098 1 Key: LB=Lower bounds (95% C.L.), UB=Upper bounds, MLE=Maximum likelihood estimate

24 22 b) age 1-3 kokanee Kinbasket July 2009 layered analyses statistics for fish >-44 db ; 4 zones ( see list of transects below table. Zone Depth N Density Standard Area Stratum Statistic 2 Abundance Error population , ,399 Big Fish > 44dB ,012 MLE 1,979, ,503 Lower 1,776, ,110 Upper 2,188, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,174 Note: strata with density= zero have been omitted (eg zone1 depth 10-15m) 2 Key: LB=Lower bounds (95% C.L.), UB=Upper bounds, MLE=Maximum likelihood estimate

25 23 APPENDIX 4. Summary of regression statistics and Maximum Likelihood Estimates from Monte Carlo Simulations for Revelstoke Reservoir in August a) fish all ages Revestoke August 2009 layered analyses statistics for fish >-61 db ; 2 zones Z1 (Transects 1-8,12,13,18), Z2 (Transects 10,14,17,19,21,23-26) Zone Depth N Density Standard Area Stratum Statistic 3 Abundance Error population All fish > 61dB MLE 1,241, Lower 1,084, Upper 1,407, b) age 1-3 kokanee Revestoke August 2009 layered analyses statistics for fish >-44 db ; 1 zones Z1 (Transects 1-8,10,12-14,17-19,21,23-26) Zone Depth N Density Standard Area Stratum Statistic 4 Abundance Error population Big Fish > 44dB MLE 200, Lower 152, Upper 252, Key: LB=Lower bounds (95% C.L.), UB=Upper bounds, MLE=Maximum likelihood estimate 4 Key: LB=Lower bounds (95% C.L.), UB=Upper bounds, MLE=Maximum likelihood estimate

26 24 Appendix 5. Trawl sampling logs and catch data for Kinbasket and Revelstoke in August 2009 The following key identifies abbreviations used in column headers: No = sample number SP = Species KO=kokanee Len = length in mm Wt = weight in g Age = estimated by length unless SN (Scale number) is filled in Mat = maturing, Imm = immature, R = ripe Sex: M or F a) Kinbasket Mica Pool August Location Trawl # Time Time Distance Target # layers Mica pool in out (m) Depth (m) T8 to T ~ M No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 1 KO Mat F 35 KO KO Mat M 36 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO

27 25 Appendix 5a continued Location Trawl # Time Time Distance Target # layers Mica pool in out (m) Depth (m) T15 to T ~ No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 68 KO IMM M 109 KO KO IMM M 110 KO KO IMM F 111 KO KO MT F 112 KO KO MT M 113 KO COT KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO IMM 146 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO

28 26 Appendix 5a continued Location Trawl # Time Time Distance Target # Mica pool in out (m) Depth (m) layers T14 to T ~ No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 150 KO IMM 190 KO KO NS IMM F 191 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO

29 27 Appendix 5b Revelstoke Reservoir trawl catches in 2009 Location Trawl # 1 Time Time Distance Target # Revelstoke in out (m) Depth (m) layers T4 to T ~ M No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 1 KO Y IMM 41 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO 41 0

30 28 Appendix 5b continued Location Trawl # 1 Time in Time Distance Target # layers Revelstoke out (m) Depth (m) T4 to T ~ No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 81 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO 45 0

31 29 Appendix 5b continued Location Trawl # 2 Time Time Distance Target # Revelstoke in out (m) Depth (m) layers T5 to T ~ No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex No. SP Len Wt Age SN Mat Sex 1 KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO KO 53 0

32 30 Appendix 6. Kokanee spawner length, weight and age data from Camp Creek, tributary to Canoe Reach on Kinbasket Reservoir (Source: K. Bray, BCH Revelstoke). a) 2009 length, wieght and age data Year Date Sex FL (mm) Wt (g) 1 Age 2 Date Sex FL (mm) W (g) Age Sep 29 F Sep 29 M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Sep 29 F M Mean F Mean M includes spawned out fish 2. Ages by Carol Lidstone, Birkenhead Scale Analysis, Lone Butte b) mean length and weight by spawning year Year Date(s) Sex Mean Mean Sex Mean Mean FL (mm) Wt (g) 1 (mm) W (g) FL 1998 Sep 28-Oct 17 F M Sep F M Sep F M Sep 28-Oct 17 F M Sep 28-Oct 17 F M Sep 28-Oct 17 F M F M F M F M F M Sep F M includes spawned out fish 2. Ages by Carol Lidstone, Birkenhead Scale Analysis, Lone Butte